ABOUT THIS TIME YESTERDAY, MUCH OF THE MINNWISSIPPI REGION WHERE YOUR CORRESPONDENT RESIDETH was bracing for the possibility of another late-season snowstorm, as if Moeder Aard wanted to pull a fast one on an already record-breaking winter after much of the snow from Good Friday's storms was melting, and then some.

WELL------!!!

By about mid-afterlunch, the Weather Service cancelled the Winter Storm Watch previously issued after new forecast models indicated that the risk of heavier snow would be well to the south of us--as in Iowa and northern Illinois, not to mention areas of extreme southern Wisconsin close to the Illinois line.

In the final analysis, though, a sloppy mix could be falling on these parts by Sunday, with milder temperatures (never mind their being close to 50 degrees Fahrenheit) likely as April makes its appearence per the calendar.

Motherdear, for her part, hopes that the frost will leave the ground soon and conditions be calm enough for farmers and planters to get the first of the field work out of the way ahead of planting.

*************

WHEN GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED COOK'S TOURS GO WRONG, AND THEN SOME: A Chinese Government-sanctioned tour of Tibet for a select party of foreign journalists was met by a group of irate Tibetan Buddhist monks near beautiful downtown Lhasa, taunting the group with chants like "Don't believe your masters!" and "Tibet is not free!" admidst all manner of devastation and ruin brought about by the late rioting and disorder.

Said disorder still viewed by China as being the work of agents provocateur under orders from the Dalai Lama, which said Dalai Lama denies and shifts blame upon the Chinese. Which, come to think of it, amounts to projection on Beijing's part as it seeks to present a positive and glowing image for the sake of the Beijing Olympic Games later this summer.

=============

AND SPEAKING OF PROJECTION FOR "WINNING OF HEARTS AND MINDS," consider the following exchange (as transcribed by Media Matters for America) between Bill "No-Spin Zone" O'Reilly and Laura Ingraham on the former's Fox Prolefeed Channel show of the 25th, wherein Mr. O'Reilly equates "Secular-Progressive" sites and blogs with Fascism and questions their loyalty and (presumed) want of True Patriot Love in All Thy Sons Command:

O'REILLY: Oh, absolutely. It'll be interesting to see if Obama or his supporters do anything on this. And if they do, it'll be on the far-left blogs, which are really vile--just vile. And on that subject, you broke a story--or you're following a story--about the awful, despicable Media Matters outfit. What are they doing now?

LAURA INGRAHAM (Fox News contributor and conservative radio host): Well, this guy named Paul Waldman, who works for Media Matters, and I don't--I don't--I'm not familiar with his work--but he wrote a piece essentially saying that because conservatives and others are talking about Reverend Wright, they are, quote, "putting down a marker" to bring this--bring the campaign into one of the more ugly aspects of racial prejudice.

In other words, Bill, a guy who wants to be president of the United States, have the ability and the authority to launch nuclear weapons, start a war, veto spending bills, should not be vetted. We should not be able to look at his closest relationships that have followed a course of 23 years, especially when it comes to someone like Reverend Wright. If we do that, we are going to be branded racist. That's how scared they are about this Reverend Wright issue. They know it's explosive.

O'REILLY: Well, they're going to brand people racist anyway. That's what Media--

INGRAHAM: Absolutely.

O'REILLY: --Matters does. That's what they do. But here's the interesting part about this: That outfit has been very, very pro-Hillary Clinton up and to this point; very silent about any attacks on Barack Obama. This is the first time as far as I know--I don't read them all the time; they're just disgusting--but they've been basically in the tank for Hillary Clinton, because the Clintons and John Podesta, their close confidante, were in--and we don't know the extent of it--but did have something to do with the creation of Media Matters. There's very close ties there. But I think you're right. This is basically throwing out the first salvo that if Barack Obama is the nominee, any criticism--

INGRAHAM: Tread carefully.

O'REILLY: Right.

INGRAHAM: Yeah, tread carefully.

O'REILLY: --any criticism you make about him will--that's a racist criticism. Anything.

INGRAHAM: They're inoculating Barack Obama or attempting to do so. And Bill, I think this really shows the weakness of the Obama campaign right now. The fact that Media Matters and other groups like it have to be out there saying, "Hey, don't you do that. You're making this a race thing. And you're showing the country what you really think about black people," when, in fact, Bill, you know this as well as I do, this story about Reverend Wright isn't about race. It's about anti-Americanism.

O'REILLY: Oh, absolutely, absolutely.

INGRAHAM: It's about the vile anti-Americanism spewing forth from that pulpit week after week and a man like Barack Obama, who knows better, sitting there week after week because he thought he would get street credibility by being associated with that Trinity Church. Now he doesn't need them anymore, so it'll be interesting to see how he reacts in the days and weeks to come.

O'REILLY: But Barack Obama--and I don't believe this to be true, I could be wrong--he doesn't have anything to do with what Media Matters or the Daily Kos or any of these people do. And I want everybody to be clear about this. None of the candidates can control the kind of filth and--talk about anti-Americanism. I mean, these Media Matters--

INGRAHAM: Yeah, it's unbelievable. It's unbelievable.

O'REILLY: --Huffington Post, Daily Kos--I mean, these are fascists. They're dishonest people.

INGRAHAM: But, Bill, here's the deal.

O'REILLY: But the candidates--

INGRAHAM: Yeah. OK.

O'REILLY: --don't have anything to do with them other than currying, pandering to them.

(If you'd like to see the segment for yourself, here 'tis:)

1. A governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
2. The philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.
3. A fascist movement, esp. the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.

Its symbol was the fasces, a Roman symbol of magisterial authority and power in form of a battle axe surrounded by a bundle of bound rods, displayed in procession by such serving as attendants for magistrates.

And its articles of faith best considered as Producerist in nature, calling as they did for a "return to the land" excused by the notion that industry was already advanced enough in terms of development.

With that in mind, may I be so kind as to ask Mr. O'Reilly to please "show us your facts" equating Secular-Progressive weblogs and news portals with Fascism, in view of the above definition. Until then, such remarks should be treated as McCarthyism most rank and vile.

*************

MEANWHILE, IN THE NEW CAPITAL OF THE SO-CALLED "UNION OF MYANMAR," BY NAME NAY PYI TAW, military majordomo Gen. Than Shwe used the annual Armed Forces Day holiday to, on the one hand, reiterate his past categorical pledge to restore civilan rule in 2010 ... yet, on the other such, called upon the Myanmari people and nation to fight "destructive elements trying to sabotage the stability of the state" (Gen. Shwe's words) preparatory therefor.

And speaking of "destructive elements trying to sabotage the stability of the state:" Doesn't that sound like the sort of language which the conservative prolefeed masheen likes to use in describing real or suspected "secular-progressive" and "liberal" elements to further reinforce their delusion that only conservatives are entitled "as of right" to an exclusive, Government-Protected Monopoly on prolefeed?    

see more crazy cat pics

[S]mall grower Lance Drum, who has a farm between Wagga Wagga and Temora [in New South Wales], told the inquiry on Wednesday that scrapping the single desk because of AWB's actions was like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

"It will be to the detriment of all young and old Australian wheat growers and their families," Mr Drum said.

"It will just absolutely ruin Australian communities and families, especially those who are least able to have cash flow behind them."

Abolishing the single desk would create greater fluctuation in prices and financial uncertainty for growers, and banks would subsequently have less confidence in farmers, he said.

Velia O'Hare, a grower from south-western NSW, said the changes could destroy rural families and communities and force more people into cities.

"Come January, if there's no buyer of last resort ... you haven't seen anything yet in suicides, because the men out there are just getting so low," she said.

"We don't need this. We're down now, don't kick us in the guts," she said.

But David Ginns, chief executive of the Grains Policy Institute, said such "prognostications of disaster" were wrong.

Mr Ginns said the removal of the single desk would force marketing costs down and put more power in the hands of growers.

Doesn't that last part about "forcing costs down and putting more power in the hands of growers" sound like the usual free-market conservative broken record about the free market being the Great White Father of the Lower Classes--especially so "chronic and habitual" welfare cases expected to be "in clear need of empowerment***after years of unconsciously falling for subtle Socialism" because of welfare dependence, "empowerment which only the free market can make all the more possible"?

IN THE GREATER CONSERVATIVE SCHEME OF THINGS, THERE IS A STRONG UNEASE TOWARDS SUCH SPECIMENS OF REALKULTUR which can be regarded as "elitist" or otherwise "promoting liberal tendencies" in an otherwise "right-thinking" audience "deserving" (or so conservative thinking hath it) of a "populist" notion of Realkultur.

Which, in effect, holds public television and radio to be "un-American" and the several FreeVee networks (especially the "populist" leaning Fox) to be "American," notwithstanding annoying commercial interruptions creating the aura of such being FreeVee; in other words, we, the people, indirectly pay for FreeVee by purchasing advertised products and services.

(For "populist," read dumbed-down, trashy--in effect, prolefeed.

(But then again, there was a time when "populist" radio programming managed to attract listeners away from "elitist" such, over the objections of the powers that be: I refer to Radio Luxembourg's English-language commercial transmissions to England's Green and Pleasant Land with a "populist" programme competing with the formalised and "elitist" BBC in spite of the repeated objections of Broadcasting House, forever claiming that radio broadcasting was the Sole and Exclusive Monopoly of the Crown, by agency of the BBC ... especially so on Sunday afternoons, when "Luxy" would offer a lineup of popular musical shows, dramas and the League of Ovaltineys children's show to counter the BBC's overbearing dominance of religious and serious programmes, especially so the former.

(Even after World War II, "Luxy" attracted especially younger audiences away from the BBC's rather predictable radio lineup, and was largely responsible for helping introduce American-influenced rock-and-roll all the more to British audiences, thanks to 15- and 30-minute programmes sponsored by record companies as were mainstays of the "Luxy" programme--almost always in the evening hours--until the late 1960's, when all shows originated live from the Grand Duchy; such would remain the case until they left the air in 1992.

(And who between Land's End and John O'Groats can still remember those rather awful commercials on "Luxy" for the Horace Batchelor Infra-Draw Method, details available by writing "Department 2, Keynsham--spelled K-E-Y-N-S-H-A-M--Keynsham, Near Bristol"?)

=============

ANYHOW, BACK TO THE SUBJECT @ HAND: Eric Boehlert with Media Matters for America thus commented on how The New York Times may have recently aided and abetted conservatives opposed to the continued maintenance and support of so-called "elitist" public broadcasting, and challenges the suppositions thus addressed:

What a strange coincidence that the Bush administration recently submitted the largest funding cut ever proposed for public broadcasting, and next week, PBS' distinguished Frontline series will mark the fifth anniversary of the Iraq invasion by airing Bush's War, which PBS describes as television's definitive documentary analysis of the war. The program reportedly draws from 40 separate war-related Frontline reports aired over the last five years. I have not previewed the television event, but I doubt that Bush aides, not to mention most Americans, will draw much comfort from what they see.

So, yes, the timing between the Frontline airing and the massive budget cuts is curious, but also accidental, since the Bush administration has been attacking PBS' funding for years, and in 2005 actually helped plot a public--and bogus--campaign to rid public broadcasting of its alleged liberal bias. And to be accurate, Bush now proposes to curb the funding set aside for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the government-created umbrella organization that doles out tens of millions of dollars annually for public television and radio programming. Frontline, in fact, does not receive direct CPB funding.

Still, the juxtaposition of the White House's draconian cuts penciled in for PBS, just when the award-winning Frontline program aims its painstaking reporting at the Iraq war, remains a telling one. And it helps to remind us, as Bush prepares his final exit, just how contemptuous this president has been of journalism in general, and especially of the thoughtful, independent brand practiced at PBS.

So I understand why Bush takes cheap shots at PBS. But what's The New York Times' excuse?

If enacted, President Bush's budget proposal to Congress would reduce CPB's funding for 2009 and 2010 by 56 percent. Specifically, Bush proposes cutting half of the $400 million already appropriated for the CPB's 2009 budget, cut an additional $220 million slated for the next year, and then eliminate the entire $483 million appropriation for fiscal 2011. The CPB is usually financed three years ahead of time to insulate the system from politics, which, of course, is deeply ironic considering the never-ending game of politics Bush has played with the funding process.

That doesn't mean public broadcasting would automatically go dark. That's because stations have other funding sources, such as corporate underwriting, foundation grants, and donations from individual viewer and listeners. (About 15 percent of total PBS revenue comes from Congress via the CPB.) But the draconian cuts would make public broadcasting's task much more difficult and would especially sting outlets in rural locations that do not have as many alternate funding options and whose annual budget relies more heavily on the CPB's generosity.

Additionally, Bush would deny any funding for public radio and television's conversion from analog to digital broadcasting, a process that is federally mandated.

What makes Bush's swipe at public broadcasting so spiteful is that, thankfully, there's virtually no chance his cuts will be enacted in full. Bush is simply perpetuating this weird Beltway Kabuki dance where a Republican president, who has been incapable of tightening federal spending in any meaningful way, makes his annual decision that public broadcasting must shed huge portions of its budget in the name of trimming the federal budget. Then a bipartisan coalition forms within Congress to restore the funding cuts. Rather than call off this game after the fifth, sixth, or seventh year, Bush decided to up the stakes and take his biggest whack yet at public broadcasting.

The ritual is pointless and spiteful, but unfortunately, this year it picked up a quasi-endorsement from The New York Times in the form of a recent, above-the-fold cover piece in the newspaper's influential Sunday Arts & Leisure section headlined, "Is PBS Still Necessary?" The article, by writer-at-large Charles McGrath, echoed long-standing conservative talking points questioning the need for taxpayer-supported television since viewers today can choose from so many cable programs. "There are not only countless more channels to chose [sic] from now, but many offer the kind of stuff that in the past you could see only on public TV, and in at least some instances they do it better," he wrote.

There's certainly nothing improper about making that claim, as long as the argument is made well and made fairly. McGrath did neither. Instead, his one-sided piece, which included no original reporting and did not offer anyone from public broadcasting a chance to rebut his claim that it wasn't worth fighting Bush's latest funding cuts on PBS, really was a train wreck. There's no doubt that the Times' public editor, Clark Hoyt, should have addressed the journalistic deficiencies in the piece, which generated written responses from nearly 1,000 (mostly angry) Times readers. Consider the following:

• The article was built on the false and elitist premise that everybody has cable television. Not true. Tens of millions of American either can't afford, or choose not to pay, the ballooning monthly fees required to receive cable television, which means all those wonderful niche programming outlets McGrath rhapsodized about (i.e. the Discovery Channel) are of no use to those people.

• McGrath claimed there wasn't much need to fund public television because PBS' programming is no longer vibrant and it's losing its audience share. By contrast, McGrath compared PBS' programming woes to the vibrancy of National Public Radio, which McGrath stressed, was a "great[] success." But Bush wants to dismantle funding for both, regardless of whether they're successes or failures, so why the misleading comparison in the Times?

• McGrath failed to note that public broadcasting costs less than $1 per person, that polling consistently indicates Americans think it's a great value. And the Times writer never suggested how that federal money could be better spent by the government. In other words, what was the explicit benefit of dismantling public broadcasting? McGrath never offered an answer.

• The fact that McGrath actually compared the brief, 30-second corporate underwriting announcements that accompany some PBS programs to the 22 minutes of wall-to-wall commercials that fill up every cable television hour indicated how unserious his critique really was.

• Nowhere in his critical examination of the PBS line-up did McGrath mention any of its extensive and award-winning children's and educational programming.

• The patently contrarian piece was also at times distastefully flippant. Like when McGrath compared PBS on-air fundraisers to water-boarding, the torturous interrogation technique sometimes used on prisoners of war. Maybe it's just me, but I fail to see the humor.

The worse part though, came when McGrath addressed the news-gathering landscape:

If you're the sort of traditional PBS viewer who likes extended news broadcasts ... cable now offers channels devoted just to your interest. Cable is a little like the Internet in that respect: it siphons off the die-hards. Public television, meanwhile, more and more resembles everything else on TV.

According to McGrath, cable television's "extended news broadcasts" are now just like the news programs you see on PBS. Honestly, what cable feed is McGrath watching? Because it's certainly not the same one that beams CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News into my house around the clock. If McGrath's claim is that the cablers cover a lot of news, that is accurate, I suppose. But to claim there's no difference between CNN's The Situation Room or Fox News' Special Report and PBS' NewsHour is just silly. (MSNBC doesn't really have its own version of a nightly news program.) The first two, despite the occasional glimpse of intelligence on The Situation Room, really are relentlessly shallow in how they cover the news, as well as extraordinarily rigid in terms of the very narrow perimeter in which they dub events to be newsworthy.

But let's look beyond the evening newscasts and examine long-form news programs such as NOW and Bill Moyers Journal. McGrath didn't mention either of those stellar programs in his piece, but I'm assuming his claim that there's no difference between them and what you can find on cable still holds. Except that, of course, it's not accurate. Despite the fact CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News broadcast more than 2,000 hours each month, those PBS news programs--broadcasting less than 10 hours each month, combined--still manage to cover issues and topics, as well as conduct interviews with prominent guests, that the cable channels ignore.

For instance, here are descriptions of recent NOW installments, as taken from the program's website:

• "Will a Bush Administration effort open thousands of acres of public land to private development?"

• "How corporations are using the designation 'freelancer' to avoid paying benefits."

• "A pioneering collaboration of Republicans and Democrats on the environment."

• "How far will one oil company go to get the politics they want? A bribery scandal in Alaska."

• "As millions of homeowners face foreclosure, NOW investigates sleazy tactics of [mortgage lenders]."

• "A billionaire fights methamphetamine use in Montana."

Raise your hand if you've seen CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News devote significant chunks of uninterrupted air time in recent months to address those topics.

Meanwhile, over at Bill Moyers Journal, here's a look at some recent guest segments from the program's extended, insightful conservations regarding important topics of the day. In parentheses is the number of times that person has appeared anywhere on American television in the previous two years, according to Nexis:

• "Historian Nell Irvin Painter examines what history reveals about the current state of inequality in America." (0)

• "Sarah Chayes, author and former journalist who has been helping rebuild Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban regime, with a look at the front lines of America's war there." (3)

• "Photographer Lori Grinker takes viewers to Amman, Jordan for a devastating look at the fate of Iraqis displaced by the conflict." (0)

• "Does America's $9 trillion federal debt mean we are mortgaging our future and jeopardizing individual savings, healthcare, and retirement for generations to come? Bill Moyers gets a reality check from Public Agenda's Scott Bittle (1) and Jean Johnson (0), co-authors of Where Does the Money Go? Your Guided Tour to the Federal Budget Crisis."

• "Is it time to rewrite the Constitution? Perspective from the University of Texas Law School's Sanford Levinson, author of Our Undemocratic Constitution." (0)

Also note that the Journal's Rick Karr has been providing some of the most in-depth reporting on the FCC's continued efforts to help consolidate major media ownership in this country. That's a news topic that traditional media outlets absolutely refuse to cover.

I'm not suggesting public broadcasting practices some sort of divine version of journalism, nor that it's above reproach. In fact, as Media Matters for America has detailed here, here, here, and here, it most certainly is not. (And I still don't understand how this journalism embarrassment ever made it on-air at PBS.)

But it is the only brand of journalism in this country that relies on the government for its funding and, based on its outstanding work, public broadcasting most certainly deserves that support. It also deserves the respect of the Bush administration, not to mention The New York Times.

Come to think of it: How do we know this Charles McGrath isn't really in the pay of His Fraudulency's "inside of the inside," let alone certain free-market Zealots and True Believers in K Street?

And how many of the world's soverign countries having supposed free-market socioeconomic policies are lacking in public-broadcasting outlets as a matter of public policy? (And I mean in the Real World, not in some fantasy Arcadia or Second Life.)

WITHOUT A DOUBT, THE ZEALOTS AND TRUE BELIEVERS OF "COMPLETE AND FINAL" DENATIONALISATION OF STATE SOCIAL SECURITY IN THE UNITED STATES (as documented here, here, here, here and here) are drooling in sheer, unadulterated envy (and then some) @ the news that Treasury Secretary Paulson has declared the current State system to be in clear and present danger of "financial unsustainability," with the current Social Security Trust Funds set to be bankrupt by 2041 unless "drastic measures" are timely undertaken.

As in "complete and final" denationalisation of the "failed and failing" State system, preferably through a "taxpayer lawsuit" filed by some Joe Sixpack type who can be easily influenced enough to parrot, and on cue, the line of denationalisation advocates acting as a United Front for the purposes of same, seeking to have the current State system declared bankrupt "financially as well as morally" (even to the extent of covering related legal expenses and costs)--all the while unaware that the whole is really nothing less than exploitation for shameless publicity purposes of a "winning of hearts and minds" sort.

Made all the more unaware because of trick and deception ... not to mention unaware that what the "sponsors" of the Petition for Bankruptcy really want is nothing less than "gifting schemes" of the kind using PayPal in furtherance thereof, packaged as "retirement savings plans" as pervert the whole idea of mutual self-help hyperconservatives enjoy holding dearly, targeting in particular the Lower Working Classes....

Two teenage Bulgarian sisters have been rescued by Italian police from a circus in which one of them is said to have been forced to swim with piranhas.

Police say that while the 19-year-old sister had to swim in a transparent tank, the 16-year-old had snakes draped across her body and suffered bites.

Four members of the family have been freed from what has been described as a "circus of horrors" south of Naples.

Three men have been arrested and charged with holding them in slavery.

The women were paid €100 (£78/$156) a week, forbidden to leave the camp and forced to work 15- and 20-hour shifts, according to police.

The Bulgarian family has now been moved to a safe house but their case highlights the plight of people caught up in human trafficking networks in Europe.

The European Union estimates that 500,000 people are affected by trafficking every year in Europe.

In 2006, more than 100 Polish workers were freed from forced labour camps in the Puglia region of Italy where they had been promised seasonal farm-work.

But then again, you could just imagine Branson being home to such a sick and depraved "circus" promoted as "wholesome family entertainment" alongside the likes of Shoji Tabuchi, Mel Tillis, Tony Orlando and other examples of what Cal Thomas described as "nutritious patriotism" in entertainment form, appealing mostly to Kankerdom with easily-manipulated patriotic feelings crossing, as required, into jingoism.

Especially so the young girl dressed up in mermaid costume and forced to swim with the aforementioned piranhas, not to mention "cultural heritage" excusing blackface minstrel routines and other politically-incorrect displays thereof pandering to the crudest of racist feelings in said target audience.